Dismissed¶31

Sri Manjunatha.S v. Sri Niranjan Yadav.C

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2025CRL.A/1038/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.A No. 1038 of 2016; decided 10.03.2025 by Justice H.P. Sandesh; appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act by II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga (C.C.No.3866/2013, judgment dated 04.04.2016); appeal dismissed for want of diligent prosecution: notice unserved since 2016, respondent untraceable, repeated NBWs (03.01.2024, 07.11.2024, 12.12.2024, 31.01.2025 via SP Shivamogga) unexecuted, appellant failed to assist Police or furnish respondent's details; no precedent cited; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

The Court found that the appellant had not pursued the matter diligently since 2016, did not assist the Police in executing the NBW or locating the respondent despite repeated directions, and appeared not interested in pursuing the appeal.

Sri Manjunatha.S Vs Sri Niranjan Yadav.C — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9951 CRL.A No. 1038 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1038 OF 2016

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATHA S., S/O SADASHIVA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O BASAVARAJA COMPOUND OLD BARLINE ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. NIRANJAN YADAV C., S/O K.V.CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT II CROSS GANDHINAGAR ‘B’ BLOCK SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA IN C.C.NO.3866/2013-ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT.

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9951 CRL.A No. 1038 of 2016

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal was filed in 2016 and even notice was not served against the respondents from 2016. This Court also gave time to ascertain correct address of the respondent for issuance of notice vide order dated 06.10.2023 and thereafter, case was called on 06.11.2023 and none appeared in the morning session and ordered to list again at 2.30 p.m and again at 2.30 p.m., learned counsel for the appellant sought time and ordered to list after four weeks. On 03.01.2024, this Court observed that notice issued to respondent has returned with an endorsement ‘no such person in the said address’. Respondent/accused was served on the same given address and has appeared before the Trial Court and it appears that he is deliberately avoiding process of the Court. Hence, issued NBW against the respondent/accused through the concerned Police Station, if process fee is paid. If process fee is not paid, then further orders will follow and ordered to list the matter after two weeks.

¶23

Thereafter, again reissued NBW on 07.11.2024 through jurisdictional Police with the assistance of the appellant

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9951 CRL.A No. 1038 of 2016

¶25

and also directed, in case of execution of warrant, respondent shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remanding him to custody and report the same to this Court and appellant also did not assist the Police to apprehend the respondent. On 12.12.2024, ordered to re-issue NBW with a direction to the appellant to assist the Police in executing the warrant, since NBW issued against the respondent was not executed as the respondent was not found in the address and ordered to list the matter in the second week of January, 2025. This Court, in the second week of January, 2025 i.e., on 31.01.2025, ordered to re-issue NBW to the respondent through Superintendent of Police, Shivamogga.

¶26

The report is received from the Superintendent of

¶27

Police that on due enquiry, it was ascertained that the respondent was not found in the present address and his present address and whereabouts are not known and could not execute the warrant. When this Court directed the appellant twice to execute the NBW and assist Superintendent of Police to ascertain correct address and locate the respondent, the appellant did not assist the Police. When such being the case and the appellant is not pursuing the matter diligently from

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:9951 CRL.A No. 1038 of 2016

¶30

2016 and inspite of direction was given, the appellant has not assisted the Police and Superintendent of Police has given the report saying that respondent is not found in the said address. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that appellant is not assisting him and furnishing details of the respondent. When such being the case, it appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the matter.

¶31

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶33

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Manjunatha.S v. Sri Niranjan Yadav.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha.S v. Sri Niranjan Yadav.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C Ramachandra Vs Sri T Malleshappa

Rajashekara Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vanajakshi P Vs Sri. S M Devaraju

Sri B Devaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Amrutha R Vs Sri Sandesh R Gowda @ Sandesh R

Sri. Dilip Alias Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka